Does Vista Support FAT or only NTFS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I've been reading several books on Vista and in one of them it indicated that
FAT and FAT32 were supported in Vista but NTFS was preferred. Later in the
same book it says that Vista only supports NTFS...just wanted to get some
insight into this.

Thanks
 
Vista supports fat32/16 but can only be installed on an NTFS partition.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
Vista can only be installed on an NTFS partition. With Windows XP you could
install it on a FAT32 file system or an NTFS file system. If you installed
XP on a FAT32 file system you also had the option of converting the
disk/partition to NTFS after XP had been installed. This is one of the
differences between XP and Vista. Vista, however, doesn't install on a FAT32
file system; it only installs on an NTFS file system.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
 
Vista is itself FAT.. very FAT and bloated... a pig a rino, a hippo.... you
get the drift.

other than that it cannot install on fat32 like XP could.. but it can READ
all kinds of fat and ntfs of course

If Vista needs 10 gb to install, and vista really needs 20 gb minimum to
function.. then you can imagine the problems.. since
win2k and XP had a limit of 32 GB for fat disks...

see here http://www.allensmith.net/Storage/HDDlimit/FAT32.htm

you could say that they would extend this limit for vista... but they wanted
to kill fat anyway....

There is room for ONLY 1 FATSO in the Vista era... and that is Vista itself!
:-)
 
ahh yes there is another reason why they killed fat...

They wanted to change the structure of vistas basic files, so
they have done some tricks with the files by creating virtual paths for
legacy programs to still function...

basically they made a mess of this.. but anyway.... you could not do that
with fat32.. only NTFS supports this.

Everything about vista is a mess... so Im not surprised.
 
If Vista needs 10 gb to install, and vista really needs 20 gb minimum to
function.. then you can imagine the problems.. since
win2k and XP had a limit of 32 GB for fat disks...
Click to expand...


No, there was/is no such limit. The 32GB limit is the limit of how
large a FAT32 partition can be *created*. There is no problem using a
larger one if it is created externally.
 
yes I know... windows ME could create fat32 partitions and format them with
practically no limit
*there are limits but there are no drives so big yet*.

I also used partition magic, that unfortunatly is no longer compatible with
vista.. a shame... norton bought it now and they killed it.

but then again.. in fat32 you have the 4 gb file limit.. meaning that one
file could not be larger than 4 gb..

generally I like ntfs far better than fat32... some people liked fat32
because they said it was faster...
however I didnt notice any difference ever, and for me ntfs was always more
stable..
 
Tiberius said:
Vista is itself FAT.. very FAT and bloated... a pig a rino, a hippo....
you get the drift.
Click to expand...
Like this?

Love and Kisses,
Doris

--
My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2
Installing: Windows vs Linux ... http://tinyurl.com/ywqmbw
BallmerBumBois: Frank, Julian, Richard Urban, Jupiter Jones, Harry Krause,
Feliks Dzerzhinsky
Sorry if I missed anyone, place your name here _________________.
 
Vista is itself FAT.. very FAT and bloated... a pig a rino, a hippo....
you
get the drift.
Click to expand...

sorta like your head, a head that thinks it knows and well you know? right?
:)

A wise man said, consider the source, and if you don't know the source,
consider another source. :)
If Vista needs 10 gb to install, and vista really needs 20 gb minimum to
function.. then you can imagine the problems.. since
win2k and XP had a limit of 32 GB for fat disks...
Click to expand...

A horse and buggy doesn't need ANY gas .. and well since a car needs gas ..
well you can imagine...
Or, maybe you can't imagine and that's precisely the nut of the problem :)

VISTA installs on NTFS
VISTA can read and write to FAT FAT32
 
I don't know anything compared to what needs to be discovered....

I am learning an a tremendous speed though vast amounts of information.

The brain is capable of infinite storage capacity.

Since the total possible neuron and dendrite connection COMBINATIONS are
far-far greater than all the atoms
of all the universe.
 
I also used partition magic, that unfortunatly is no longer compatible with 
vista.
Click to expand...

My VISTA -- Business and then upgraded to Ultimate -- was installed in a
partition created by Partition Magic 8 that is installed on my XP drive ....

Works fine.

But in view of what I hear, I would not change a partition with VISTA in it
using PM.

I understand that GPARTED is OK in VISTA but I've not run it.
 
yes if you create the partition first with partition magic its ok...

I meant that PM is not compatible when you run it from within vista

there is a Paragon disk manager that seems good
 
The brain is capable of infinite storage capacity.

Since the total possible neuron and dendrite connection COMBINATIONS are
far-far greater than all the atoms
of all the universe.
Click to expand...

Let me translate if you will, "make up shit and believe it" ? :)

that'll only get you so far


Rich
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Vista is itself FAT.. very FAT and bloated... a pig a rino, a hippo.... you
get the drift.
Click to expand...

Not half as fat as your head. You can always be relied upon to post
irrelevant and useless information. If you want to troll, why not go
elsewhere. People like you were saying the same thing about DOS 3.0.

In an era where you can buy a 750GB hard drive, the size of Vista is not
an issue.

- --
Iron Feliks

Trolls are like babies. After feeding, they get stinky.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGWDnIIEgejQPpTu4RCvKOAJ4oPq3RyVJUr8wsx7cNjVTZ1AujnACeK7ci
iYwf+BXqVsjgltdhoQ2glaI=
=/yiU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Feliks said:
In an era where you can buy a 750GB hard drive, the size of Vista is not
an issue.

- --
Iron Feliks
Click to expand...

True. Vista's issues are not really its size but its draconian DRM,
risible UAC and ineffective "anti piracy" crap that can render your
computer useless. And. lest we forget, the price in Europe is outrageous.

Other than that, it's a pretty good XP SE.

Alias
 
No its also its size.. but not the size on the disk.. who cares about that?

Its the amount of CPU and RAM it needs just to make itself move....

When I say bloat, thats what I mean... too many services too many dlls too
many trash running
in the background...

you know what its like?

Remember when you freshly format a pc and it is swift? Then after some time
it gets slower and slower
as you add programs that add drivers, shell extensions, services, dlls etc?

Well vista is slow like that right out of the BOX! lol because it has so
many things that want to work...
then you can imagine adding your own stuff....

I have another strategy.. >>> dont load unless you need, dont run unless you
need.
Keep the cpu and ram free for the applications...

Even with tweaks vista is still slow and horrid....

what a freakshow of an OS!
 
Back
Top